I came across an interesting article today ; here is the link to the original: http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/2009/apr/28/marriage-licenses-are-about-parenting/----Doc Burkhart
Recent same sex marriage rulings seem to miss a critical part of civil marriage — the minor issues of the marriage. The main reasons for civil marriage.
The basis for civil marriage has and should be natural paternity and proper upbringing of kids, plus who they can’t marry — close blood relatives.
Same-sex marriage fails the test. Government issues many other type of licenses including legal status for man’s best friend.
Today government is providing excess welfare incentives for single parents and decreasing traditional two-natural-parent marriages. Does anyone understand this?
Single people now pay higher taxes and now a subset will be treated like couples who may naturally reproduce. Why not spinster sisters? Is this discrimination?
The media gives poorly thought out ideas on what same sex marriage may cause. Let us consider two potential results.
Joe was a guy who liked young guys for sex. A single mom and her teen son Tad move into his apartment building in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Like Joe, they like booze, pot and other drugs.
Tad turns 16 and looks 12. Joe convinces Tad and his mom that Tad and Joe are in love, and she signs for Tad a high school junior and Joe to marry. Joe legally has what he wants.
Several years later Tad meets a girl falls in love gets her pregnant and goes, through CD treatment. Tad then decides to do the right thing he moves with his pregnant girlfriend to Nebraska and they marry. That is bigamy in Iowa, but Joe forgets it.
Several years later Tad’s wife dies and he moves back to family in Iowa (although they have problems). Tad gets another girl pregnant, but her generous welfare makes marriage look stupid. When Tads’ son Chad is a lad of 12. Tad is killed by a drunken driver. Joe then claims Chad indicating Joe and Tad were still legally married. Tad had Chad when they were “married†and he is the closest relative, and, besides, Joe said Chad looks just like Tad when he first saw him.
Bob also lived in Iowa and felt the law should treat his plural marriage sect better. Bob wanted recognition of plural marriage, but why? Historic (David, Abraham) consenting adults choice, natural reproduction etc.
Bob was legally married to one wife and his sect had married him to a second and third wife in his creed. In consultation it was decided wives 2 and 3 would marry each other under Bob’s last name and the four of them and their six kids would live happily ever after.
No matter what your moral judgement of same sex marriage the practical civil result should give all Americans pause for thought and why in history marriage was for man and woman.
Tom Schleck
Recent same sex marriage rulings seem to miss a critical part of civil marriage — the minor issues of the marriage. The main reasons for civil marriage.
The basis for civil marriage has and should be natural paternity and proper upbringing of kids, plus who they can’t marry — close blood relatives.
Same-sex marriage fails the test. Government issues many other type of licenses including legal status for man’s best friend.
Today government is providing excess welfare incentives for single parents and decreasing traditional two-natural-parent marriages. Does anyone understand this?
Single people now pay higher taxes and now a subset will be treated like couples who may naturally reproduce. Why not spinster sisters? Is this discrimination?
The media gives poorly thought out ideas on what same sex marriage may cause. Let us consider two potential results.
Joe was a guy who liked young guys for sex. A single mom and her teen son Tad move into his apartment building in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Like Joe, they like booze, pot and other drugs.
Tad turns 16 and looks 12. Joe convinces Tad and his mom that Tad and Joe are in love, and she signs for Tad a high school junior and Joe to marry. Joe legally has what he wants.
Several years later Tad meets a girl falls in love gets her pregnant and goes, through CD treatment. Tad then decides to do the right thing he moves with his pregnant girlfriend to Nebraska and they marry. That is bigamy in Iowa, but Joe forgets it.
Several years later Tad’s wife dies and he moves back to family in Iowa (although they have problems). Tad gets another girl pregnant, but her generous welfare makes marriage look stupid. When Tads’ son Chad is a lad of 12. Tad is killed by a drunken driver. Joe then claims Chad indicating Joe and Tad were still legally married. Tad had Chad when they were “married†and he is the closest relative, and, besides, Joe said Chad looks just like Tad when he first saw him.
Bob also lived in Iowa and felt the law should treat his plural marriage sect better. Bob wanted recognition of plural marriage, but why? Historic (David, Abraham) consenting adults choice, natural reproduction etc.
Bob was legally married to one wife and his sect had married him to a second and third wife in his creed. In consultation it was decided wives 2 and 3 would marry each other under Bob’s last name and the four of them and their six kids would live happily ever after.
No matter what your moral judgement of same sex marriage the practical civil result should give all Americans pause for thought and why in history marriage was for man and woman.
Tom Schleck
